PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 68, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 60-66

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nosse, L. J
Right arrow Articles by McCrimmon, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nosse, L. J
Right arrow Articles by McCrimmon, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Research

Spinal Effects of Head-down Tilting: Part 1—Low Back Contour Changes

Larry J Nosse, Dennis C Sobush and Cathy McCrimmon

L. Nosse, MA, is Associate Professor, Program in Physical Therapy, Marquette University, 615 N 11th St, Milwaukee, WI 53233 (USA).
D. Sobush, MA, is Associate Professor, Program in Physical Therapy, Marquette University.
C. McCrimmon, MA, was a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Marquette University, during her association with this study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two methods of inversion therapy and four common exercise positions on the shape of the low back. We studied 25 healthy subjects in six exercise positions: 1) inverted with lower limbs extended (ILLE), 2) standing, 3) supine, 4) inverted with lower limbs flexed (ILLF), 5) sitting, and 6) hooklying. A manual measurement system was used to determine low back contours (LBCs) from S2 upward for 19 cm at 1-cm intervals. Contour data were reduced to mean contour values (MCVs). Results showed that the standing and sitting positions produced the largest and smallest MCVs, respectively (p < .01). The ILLF MCV was smaller (p < .05) than both supine MCVs but not appreciably different from the ILLE MCV. The ILLE and ILLF positions significantly reduced (p < .01) MCVs compared with the standing position. Neither position decreased the MCV as much as the sitting position. These results support the use of inversion therapy to reduce the depth of the LBC when sitting is inappropriate.

Key Words: Back • Kinesiology/biomechanics, trunk • Traction


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Physical Therapy Association.